Emotional Intelligence

There has been a growing research interest in emotional intelligence as

evidenced by the results of a database survey by Akerjordet and Severinsson (2007).
Research into emotional intelligence is still in its infancy. This literature review will
look at the evolution of the research into emotional intelligence in the areas of the
definition, assessment and the development of emotional intelligence. The research
into emotional intelligence appears to be undergoing a big bang with a simple idea
rapidly expanding to becoming increasingly more complex. A lack of agreement on
the true nature of emotional intelligence and limited research insights means that
emotional intelligence remains a confused and disputed concept. This expansion is
often seen as delegitimising emotional intelligence (Locke, 2005).

The evolution of the concept of emotional intelligence is relatively new. It was

first coined by Salovey and Mayer in 1990 and defined as the ability to monitor ones
own and others feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this
information to guide ones thinking and actions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 189).
They refined this definition as they felt that it was too vague (Mayer & Salovey,
1997). The detailed definition developed four branches that comprised emotional
intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). The lowest branch involved the capability of
the individual to identify their emotional state (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). The next
level was the intellectual stimulus that resulted from emotional events (Mayer &
Salovey, 1997). The third level is the capability of the individual to leverage their
emotional knowledge to advance themselves (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). The highest
level is being able to consciously regulate the emotions (Mayer & Salovey, 1997).
One of the problems with emotional intelligence has been the expansion of definitions
of the nature of emotional intelligence (Van Rooy, Viswesvaran & Pluta, 2005).

There are three main branches to the range of definitions of emotional

intelligence. There is the ability model, the personality model and the mixed model
(Opengart, 2005). The original definition proposed by Mayer and Salovey (1997) was

Page 1
the ability model. Goleman and Cherniss (1998) linked emotional intelligence more
closely to the personality of the individual. The personality model was criticised as
lacking academic rigour and not describing intelligence but personality (Mayer,
Salovey & Caruso, 2000). The mixed model developed by Bar-On (1997) extends the
dimensions of emotional intelligence that include intrapersonal, interpersonal,
adaptability, stress and mood elements. This expansion of the definition has created
confusion and prompted debate as to whether emotional intelligence actually exists.
In the workplace, the mixed methods model has exerted a stronger influence than the
ability model (Cartwright & Pappas, 2007).

Problems with agreement on the definition and different perspectives on

emotional intelligence create a lack of theoretical clarty. New researchers attempting
to provide theoretical clarity tend to add to the confusion. They often state their
position in support of the ability or mixed model and then attempt to develop a model
that adds credibility and validity to the theoretical position that they have adopted. For
instance, Joseph and Newman (2010) adopt a theoretical position of supporting the
ability model and then develop a cascading model of emotional intelligence founded
on three subfacets of emotional intelligence: emotional perception, emotion
understanding and emotion regulation (Joseph & Newman, 2010, p. 56). Often the
verification of the validity of the theory is derived from the use of existing research in
the field. This is problematic given that there is often a lack of a sufficient body of
empirical research due to the newness of emotional intelligence. Joseph and Newman
(2010) are forced to accept small sample sizes despite acknowledging that large
sample sizes are a pre-requisite for establishing validity. The limitations of failing to
conduct primary research in the field are evidenced by Joseph and Norman (2010)
only being able to use 22 articles out of the 900 that were reviewed. Further
limitations were identified due to a lack of gender and cultural research (Joseph &
Norman, 2010).

Measurement of emotional intelligence requires a clear definition in order that

they can be reliable and valid measures. The earliest and still most prevalent measures
are self-reporting (Cartwright & Pappas, 2007). These measures are criticised as
lacking the objectivity and empiricism to be considered reliable and valid (Ashkanasy
& Daus, 2005; Goldenberg, Mathewson & Mantler, 2006). These instruments have
been criticised on the grounds that they can deliver differing results for the same

Page 2
individual (Muyia, 2009). Over time, the self-reporting instruments have become
more refined and include multiraters in order to be more reliable and accurate (Muyia,
2009). Debate still continues as to the most effective means of assessing emotional
intelligence (Muyia, 2009). This debate is heavily influenced by the definitional
model that the critic supports (Muyia, 2009). Validity of the measurement instrument
has become more of an issue than its reliability (Muyia, 2009).

Not only has there been considerable debate into the nature of emotional
intelligence and its assessment, but there is also a body of research into how
emotional intelligence can be developed with different groups of people. In the
educational field, Dolev and Leshem (2017) followed a structured teacher
development programme for two years that involved a mix of individual coaching and
group development sessions. The self-awareness and emotional intelligence of the
participants improved (Dolev & Leshem, 2017). Research has found that mentoring
from authentic leaders is perceived as improving a mentees emotional intelligence
(Shapira-Lishchinsky & Levy-Gazenfrantz, 2016). Training in emotional intelligence
demonstrated an improvement in the adaptability and capability to express and
understand emotions from a group of disadvantaged youth (Crane, Taylor, Cormier,
Lean, Keefer & Parker, 2016). In the workplace the benefits of emotional intelligence
have been found in an improvement in sales, increased staff retention and an increase
in the human capital (Watkin, 2000). It is this identified benefit of emotional
intelligence that has been instrumental in growing research interest (Mathews,
Zeidner & Roberts, 2002). In the field of leadership, the importance of emotional
intelligence has delivered mixed results (Hunt & Fitzgerald, 2013).

There have evolved three bases for the criticism of emotional intelligence. The
first is the academic argument around the definition and nature of emotional
intelligence (Cherniss, 2010). The second has been the development of assessment
instruments that are valid and reliable (Cherniss, 2010). The third is debate about the
role that emotional intelligence plays in influencing certain personal outcomes
(Cherniss, 2010). All three interplay to create a sense of confusion that Cherniss
(2010) considers will only be resolved when the two models: the ability model and
the mixed model are labelled separately. Such a move would be recognition of the
desire of Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2008) to link emotional intelligence with the
ability model. The definition debate has diverted attention and resources away from

Page 3
the development of more reliable and valid assessment instruments. Once effective
assessment instruments are developed then the way will be cleared for deeper
research into the impact that emotional intelligence has on individuals capabilities.

Where there has been research into the influence of the emotions on the
reasoning abilities of people, the findings have uncovered important insights.
Research by Montes-Berges and Augusto (2007) found that improvement in
emotional intelligence can reduce the stress that an individual experiences. The
research by Alumran and Punamki (2008) found that emotional intelligence improves
the problem-solving abilities of the individual. High levels of emotional intelligence
appear to improve the self-confidence of an individual (Nasir & Masrur, 2010).
These studies demonstrate the shift towards the consideration of emotional
intelligence in different cultural contexts although there is a need for more
comparative studies based on gender and culture. As greater insights are gained
through the research, there will be improvement in the quality of the training that is
provided in order to enhance the emotional intelligence of an individual.

In light of these elements, it is illuminating to return to the perspective of

Mayer, Salovey and Caruso as they reflect on the big-bang of their tentative
proposal (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2008, p.503). They acknowledge the confusion
that has resulted from researchers expanding out the elements that are included under
the umbrella of emotional intelligence. Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2008) agree with
the views of Landy (2005) and Murphy and Sideman (2006) that the inclusion of an
ever-expanding traits as characteristic of emotional intelligence has acted to
undermine the concept. Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2008) argue for a return to their
original concept of emotional intelligence. This need demonstrates the inherent
problem that can arise when a tentative concept becomes subject to the research field.
The differing concepts and models that are developed act to dilute the original theory
to such a degree that it becomes so far removed from the original concept.

In order to improve the situation that has evolved, Mayer, Salovey and Caruso
(2008) suggest that the personality model is dropped. This appears to have been
accepted by the research material that tends to discuss only the ability model and the
mixed model (Joseph & Norman, 2010). Mayer, Salovey and Caruso are critical of
researchers that generate their own conceptions of emotional intelligence rather than

Page 4
base their explorations on empirically validated research. Mayer, Salovey and Caruso
(2008) recommend acceptance of the definition of emotional intelligence as being
limited to a set of abilities that link reasoning and emotion. Mayer, Salovey and
Caruso (2008) are critical of the big-bang outcome of emotional intelligence research
and recommend the establishment of parameters for the research. This appears to be a
difficult request given that there is still a large amount of the unknown concerned
with emotional intelligence. Gender and culture to name but two. There are remaining
problems with the validity and reliability of the assessment instruments that warrant
further investigation.

In conclusion, the evolution of the concept of emotional intelligence illustrates

the problems that arise from a poorly defined initial concept. The big bang of research
seeks to expand out the parameters of the concept with different models and
definitions. Although researchers argue that they are advancing the field, in actual fact
the researchers are undermining the field. The original concept becomes unclear such
that its validity becomes questioned. The philosophical and ideological debate that
ensues limits the level of empirical research that can improve the understanding of the
benefits of emotional intelligence in differing contexts and the degree that gender
moderates emotional intelligence. The clarification of the model by Mayer, Salovey
and Caruso (2008) was timely. The split between the ability model of Mayer, Salovey
and Caruso (2008) and the mixed model remains unresolved. The research field of
emotional intelligence is rich for mining. In the future, empirical research will
uncover new insights that will enable emotional intelligence to assume greater
significance in the development of self-leadership. There is a real danger that if the
arguments are not resolved that the credibility of emotional intelligence will be
undermined.

Page 5
Reference List

Akerjordet, K., & Severinsson, E. (2007). Emotional intelligence: a review of the

literature with specific focus on empirical and epistemological perspectives.
Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16, 1405-1416. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2702.2006.01749.x.

Alumran, J. I. A., & Punamaki, R. L. (2008). Relationship between gender, age,

academic achievement, emotional intelligence, and coping styles in Bahraini
adolescents. Individual Differences Research, 6(2), 104119.

Ashkanasy, N.M., & Daus, S.C. (2002). Emotion in the workplace: The new
challenge for managers. The Academy of Management Executive, 16, 76-86.

Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A test of emotional

intelligence. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Cartwright, S., & Pappas, C. (2007). Emotional intelligence, its measurement and
implications for the workplace executives. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 10, 149-171. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00220.x.

Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: toward clarification of a concept.

Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 3(2), 110-126.

Crane, G., Taylor, R.N., Cormier, M., Lean, J., Keefer, K.V., & Parker, J.D.A. (2016).
Developing emotional intelligence in at-risk youth. Personality and Individual
Differences, 101, p. 473. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.114.

Dolev, N., & Leshem, S. (2017). Developing emotional intelligence competence

among teachers. Teacher Development, 21(1), 21-39. doi:
10.1080/13664530.2016.1207093.

Goldenberg, I., Mathewson, K., & Mantler, J. (2006). The assessment of emotional
intelligence: A comparison of performance-based and self-report
methodologies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 33-45.

Goleman, D., & Cherniss, G. (1998). Bringing emotional intelligence to the

workplace. New Jersey: Rutgers.

Page 6
Hunt, J., & Fitzgerald, M. (2013). The relationship between emotional intelligence
and transformational leadership: An investigation and review of competing
claims in the literature. American International Journal of Social Science,
2(8), 30-38.

Joseph, D.L., & Newman, D.A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-
analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), pp. 54-
78. doi: 10.1037/a0017286.

Landy, F.J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on
emotional intelligence. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 26, 411-424.

Locke, E.A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of

Organisational Behaviour, 26, 425-431.

Mathews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional Intelligence: Science
and myth. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? New York: Basic
Books.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D.R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability
or eclectic traits? American Psychologist,

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (2000). Emotional intelligence as zeitgeist,
as personality and as a mental ability. In R. Bar-On & J. Parker (Eds.), The
Handbook of Emotional Intelligence (pp. 92-117). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Montes-Berges, B., & Augusto, J. M. (2007). Exploring the relationship between

perceived emotional intelligence, coping, social support and mental health in
nursing students. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 14(2),
163171.

Murphy, K.R., & Sideman, L. (2006). The facilitation of emotional intelligence. In

K.R. Murphy (Ed.), A critique of emotional intelligence: What are the
problems and how can they be fixed up (pp. 283-299). Mahwah, New Jersey:
Erlbaum.

Page 7
Muyia, H.M. (2009). Approaches to and instruments for measuring emotional
intelligence: A review of selected literature. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 11(6), 690-702. doi: 10.1177/1523422309360843.

Nasir, M., & Masrur, R. (2010). An exploration of emotional intelligence of the

students of IIUI in relation to gender, age and academic achievement. Bulletin
of Education and Research, 32(1), 3751.

Opengart, R. (2005). Emotional intelligence and emotion work: Examining constructs

from an interdisciplinary framework. Human Resource Development Review,
4(1), 49-62. doi: 10.1177/1534484304273817.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Baywood
Publishing.

Shapira-Lishchinsky, O., & Levy-Gazenfrantz, T. (2016). The multifaceted nature of

mentors authentic leadership and mentees emotional intelligence: A critical
perspective. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 44(6),
951-969. doi: 10.1177/1741143215595413.

Van Rooy, D.L., Viswesvaran, C., & Pluta, P. (2005). An evaluation of construct
validity: What is this think called emotional intelligence. Human
Performance, 18(4), 445-462.

Watkin, C. (2000). Developing emotional intelligence. International Journal of

Selection and Assessment, 8(2), 89-92.

Page 8